Reports and News from D&D XP

[CharlesRyan]

I have pointed out that:

1) The success of the brand and the RPG are two different things.

2) Hasbro's reportage doesn't concentrate on the brand at all, but categories that the brand might be broken down into.

3) That the relationship between these categories and the D&D brand probably contain the truth about how various facets of the brand are doing.

Oh, and I'll add:

4) The last time I heard the "best ever" statement, a friend of mine lost her job to layoff weeks after --as did the man who *made* the statement.

OK. I'm the guy who made that statement, and was subsequently laid off. Let me throw a few points into the mix to help shed a little light on things. (Or, who knows, perhaps just muddy things further.)

When I used the term "biggest year ever" back in 2005, I refered to the fact that the D&D RPG appeared to be as strong as it ever had been--particularly in contrast to the early 80s, which people always seemed to assume was the brilliant heights to which D&D could never again aspire to acheive. But in fact, by pretty much every metric we had access to or could guess at, D&D seemed to be as big as or bigger in 2005 than it was in the 80s. Sales, number of players, brand recognition, and so on. I'm sure if you search these boards you'll find many posts by me from that era, talking about D&D's state at the time.

And yes, there is a difference between the RPG and the brand. At the time, I made it clear I was talking about the RPG.

Please note that I am not directly endorsing any statements by WotC in the last year or so--I don't work there, and I don't know what they're basing their statements on. But I will say that I know the people who uttered those statements pretty darn well, and I can vouch for the fact that they're not hollow marketteers spewing baseless spin. If they said 2006 was the best year ever, they almost certainly had a good, honest basis for saying that.

While I'm at it, can I address a couple of other points?

First, don't read too much into the absence of the words "Dungeons & Dragons" in Hasbro reporting. Like most big companies, Hasbro tends to restrict its specific reporting to what it has identified as key brands. Key brands aren't always those brands that make the most money or that grow the fastest--sometimes they're the brands that are icons of the company, resonate with stockholders, are seen as critical to future growth, and so on. Most likely, D&D is lumped into the publishing category--so the fact that that category has been called out probably says something about how D&D is doing.

Second, please don't quote my layoff as a sign of the health of D&D. When a big company reorganizes, the sad truth is that nobody is immune--the company seeks to make itself more efficient, and sometimes that means pruning good people. It's ironic (believe me, nobody senses that irony more than I), but I lost my job in spite of, not because of, the brand's performance.

One last note, just because I want to be really clear on this. I don't work at WotC anymore, and I'm not an insider. Furthermore, everything I've said here is stuff I said in public (including here on ENworld) back when I ran the brand--which means both that it contains no company secrets, and that it's well out of date. Take it as you will.

 

[eyebeams]

Without knowing what percentage of total D&D sales are actual Eberron products, and then comparing said sales figures to Forgotten Realms, Exalted, or something else as popular how can a statement on rather it is doing well or not be made?

As its IP has been spun off into higher-risk products like DDO and D&D Miniatures with Eberron creatures, it's a good sign it's doing well.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Given the support that Greyhawk is getting in the pages of Dungeon (and to a lesser degree, Dragon) and the Living Greyhawk campaign, Greyhawk fans get more support for their setting than anybody else.

And I'm happy about that too.

Really, between SCAP, AoW and Savage Tide, Greyhawk fans aren't taking a back seat to anybody. The same people who write for WotC write for Paizo. And it's 100% official content.

This is a tempest in a teapot.

Its funny that for so much support I can't point my players to any book to read up on the World of Greyhawk other than pointing them to ebay. Making a series of modules the only support is a bit "old school" one would say, but not very good for getting new players interested in the setting.

 

[eyebeams]

OK. I'm the guy who made that statement, and was subsequently laid off. Let me throw a few points into the mix to help shed a little light on things. (Or, who knows, perhaps just muddy things further.)

When I used the term "biggest year ever" back in 2005, I refered to the fact that the D&D RPG appeared to be as strong as it ever had been--particularly in contrast to the early 80s, which people always seemed to assume was the brilliant heights to which D&D could never again aspire to acheive. But in fact, by pretty much every metric we had access to or could guess at, D&D seemed to be as big as or bigger in 2005 than it was in the 80s. Sales, number of players, brand recognition, and so on. I'm sure if you search these boards you'll find many posts by me from that era, talking about D&D's state at the time.

In that case, what do you think was shouldering the 8% decline in games revenue reported in 2005? The report mentions Magic and Duel Masters declining, but if specific brand reportage isn't a big deal . . .

And yes, there is a difference between the RPG and the brand. At the time, I made it clear I was talking about the RPG.

I remember that. I'm talking about this year, which is relevant since XP did lump miniatures and the RPG together.

Please note that I am not directly endorsing any statements by WotC in the last year or so--I don't work there, and I don't know what they're basing their statements on. But I will say that I know the people who uttered those statements pretty darn well, and I can vouch for the fact that they're not hollow marketteers spewing baseless spin. If they said 2006 was the best year ever, they almost certainly had a good, honest basis for saying that.

I'm sure there was a basis as well, but I also think that there's a tendency to translate any news as being about how many PHBs are getting into new players' hands. Something like "PHB sales were such and such compared to last year" would be pretty indicative. But "Best year ever" doesn't have much specificity, I'm afraid.

Plus, there's nothing "hollow" about marketing -- it's a difficult, creatively engaging job.

First, don't read too much into the absence of the words "Dungeons & Dragons" in Hasbro reporting. Like most big companies, Hasbro tends to restrict its specific reporting to what it has identified as key brands. Key brands aren't always those brands that make the most money or that grow the fastest--sometimes they're the brands that are icons of the company, resonate with stockholders, are seen as critical to future growth, and so on. Most likely, D&D is lumped into the publishing category--so the fact that that category has been called out probably says something about how D&D is doing.

How much of a chunk of the publishing category is/was D&D rpg books?

Second, please don't quote my layoff as a sign of the health of D&D. When a big company reorganizes, the sad truth is that nobody is immune--the company seeks to make itself more efficient, and sometimes that means pruning good people. It's ironic (believe me, nobody senses that irony more than I), but I lost my job in spite of, not because of, the brand's performance.

How did publishing outside of D&D do that year? Given some of the people, it looks like that chunk was significantly affected.

Thanks for taking the time to participate.

 

[Maggan]

... but after that found my purchases of the Eberron line quickly decreased, then stopped alltogether as I discovered settings that had a higher quality(for me) such as Iron Kingdoms and Dark Legacies with a more manageable production schedule (personally I prefer a lower release schedule with higher quality than the opposite) ...

While I prefer Iron Kingdoms over Eberron, I'm curios as to why you feel that the Eberron release schedule is to intense?

I count 10 IK books in my shelf, and 13 Eberron books. It's a small difference, but in my mind the release schedule for Eberron is quite managable, of not downright slow. There are certainly more books released than for IK, but it's not like there's a book for Eberron every other week. Isn't it more like once every two or three months?

/M

 

[Imaro]

As its IP has been spun off into higher-risk products like DDO and D&D Miniatures with Eberron creatures, it's a good sign it's doing well.

Once again this is interpretation, and I'll give you a different one that could be just as well supported by the above facts. They want to generate interest in it. What better way to generate interest in something than to mesh it with products that are already firmly doing well(DDM) or that will reach a wider audience(DDO), and from hearsay(not claiming it's in anyway "fact" DDO was a dissapointment to both Eberron fans and MMORPG'ers.

 

[Imaro]

While I prefer Iron Kingdoms over Eberron, I'm curios as to why you feel that the Eberron release schedule is to intense?

I count 10 IK books in my shelf, and 13 Eberron books. It's a small difference, but in my mind the release schedule for Eberron is quite managable, of not downright slow. There are certainly more books released than for IK, but it's not like there's a book for Eberron every other week. Isn't it more like once every two or three months?

/M

IKCG, IKWG, Monsternomicon, Five Fingers, Liber Mechanika,...I guess the witchfire modules(don't have these, but still only come up with 8(I guess you could push it and say Lock & Load as well, so 9), but this is the total number of books they've put out since 3.0 not 3.5 was created.
P.S. Maybe I'm missing some, am I?

On the other hand Eberron has released, ECS, RoE, Sharn, ExplHB, 5Nations, MoE, Exp toXen, FaithsoEb, EbPG, Dragonmarked, Shadows of the last War, 3(or is it 4) modules, Eberron DM screen, Eberron pc sheets. And yes, before anyone throws out the "Don't buy it if you don't want it card" already done.

So even without the screen or the sheets it's still 14 since after 3.5 came out, compare that to the number of products put out for IK since 3.5, five, and it's over twice as many books. This compounded with the fact that I felt(IMHO) the IK books give me way more information about the actual world for less money than Eberron books do kind of settled it for me.

The number of Eberron books wouldn't be so bad to me but I'm also not keen on how the books are coming out for Eberron. This is of course all my opinion, but I really wish they had fleshed out the rest of Khorvaire before doing books on Xendrik, Sarlona, and the Last War. I feel like none of the monster kingdoms, Valenar, Lhazaar Principalities, etc. have been covered but we're on to another continent already. Even a book about an island that's never going to be detailed got published before the basics.

Lastly I'm not sure what Eberron's focus is anymore. When I bought it I was hooked by the pulp, noir, dark fantasy tag. I see the pulp and to a lesser extent the noir(though not much) but I don't consider it a dark fantasy setting at all. At least no darker than FR or GH. And if I just wanted a pulp setting I'm not sure D&D is the game I would use.

Anyway as you can see my decision wasn't just a more books vs. less books decision but that was a factor in it.

 

[Maggan]

IKCG, IKWG, Monsternomicon, Five Fingers, Liber Mechanika,...I guess the witchfire modules(don't have these, but still only come up with 8(I guess you could push it and say Lock & Load as well, so 9), but this is the total number of books they've put out since 3.0 not 3.5 was created.
P.S. Maybe I'm missing some, am I?

I doublechecked, and perhaps I cheated a little, as it turns out I counted the Witchfire trilogy compilation as one book as well, bringing it to 10.

So even without the screen or the sheets it's still 14 since after 3.5 came out, compare that to the number of products put out for IK since 3.5, five, and it's over twice as many books.

Yeah well, but then Privateer Press has a glacial release schedule. Geez, I'd love it if they at least had doubled their output over the years!

As for Eberron, 14 books in 2,5 years aint that much. Any less and people would be claiming the setting was dead.

/M

 

[Vocenoctum]

Actually, I haven't made any definitive statements about how D&D is doing at all. And there's no innuendo; Hasbro's last annual report for FY 2005 gives D&D little to no mention, and the 4thQ release doesn't mention D&D. As I said earlier, this may have to do with the presentation style and not relative earnings of the brand.

If you agree that the data is meaningless without knowing the facts, then why bring it up whenever someone mentions D&D is doing well? You provide innuendo as counter-arguement to D&D doing well. You have nothing direct, so you supply "an indirect intimation about a person or thing, esp. of a disparaging or a derogatory nature."

This is too vague to parse. "The path D&D is treading?" Marketing will naturally change according to quarterly and annual results. I believe Mike Mearls mentioned even more frequent updates at R&D meetings. D&D will *never* have the same kind of marketing and releases from year to year.

I can't address your remark because I don't understand its substance. Are you saying D&D will have the same kind of ads? Release the same kind of products? Use the same rules? What are you saying, exactly?

There's no reason to parse it, it was an online discussion about what was meant and what could be infered. If you'd said "I wonder what parts of the strategy they believe had the most impact" it would be different than argueing whether the statement is meaningless and bringing up the Hasbro earnings report innuendo.

A strawman is a point that bears no relevance to the argument at hand. Since the argument at hand is about the "best year ever" claim, saying that discussing it is a strawman is by definition erroneous.

Strawman=a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted
No one said the statement was concrete. You entered that into the arguement to refute it, creating your own arguement to win. No one said you were calling folks a liar, you brought it in in order to refute it.

Seem like strawmen to me. You bring the subjects into the discussion just to refute them.

If Umbran would care to tell me why he brought up opinions about the honesty of folks at WotC when I didn't I can respond to your other issue.

Saying we accept that they're honest doesn't mean that you don't, it may intimate it on some levels, but it was not the basis for the arguement, but a passing reference that the statement can be accepted as true, IMO. You've carried that battle yourself.

No, I'm just have no interest in the impossible task of definitively proving a negative.

Proving a negative?
I asked why you brought it up. Is it important to the discussion at hand, or not. It's just more innuendo, "these folks got laid off when this was said" intimates that those layoffs counter the statement, which you know is not true, so I asked what you mean in reference to this thread. I'm not asking you to prove anything, just asking "why do you mention it?".

(I'm happy to discuss these things with people who do *not* demand proof of a negative, though.)

Cool, then we can have a nice logical discussion.

In fact, in a rational discussion the burden is on you to assert a positive claim -- and you have. You have asserted I have a secret grudge against D&D that I'm using "innuendo" to fulfill even though I sell compatible products, play my Monk/Rogue once a week, and Mike Mearls and I are friended to each other over on livejournal.

I won't guess at motivations, that's silly. I'm not asking to prove anything, just asking "why?". I don't see how personal friendships and a competing business make you immune to stating your personal opinions.

 

[Vocenoctum]

So Merric, no news of 4e at D&D XP?

There was news of No 4e, if that helps.